Juliusz Chroboczek writes ("Making daemons compatible with systemd [was: Minimal init]"):
> > From what I've seen in Lennart's posts, adding systemd support doesn't
> > seem to be too complicated.
>
> No. No changes at all are necessary to be compatible with systemd.
> This is a very impressive feature of systemd; at the same time, this is
> what complicates systemd, and creates a dependency on cgroups.
I don't think this is a good tradeoff.
It is much better to modify the few upstream daemons which would need
patching, than to add all of this extra machinery to support what
seems to me to be a design whose entire purpose is to workaround a
to-my-mind-broken interface paradigm (daemon(3)) invented decades ago.
Ian.